Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

[RickG]

Hi Rick. Am I correct in believing you are a geologist or at least have some training in that field? I thought you and I talked about that once. If I am correct in that thinking I have an honest question or two for you.

I have a Master of Science degree from the Univ. of Memphis in Physical Earth Science with a concentration in paleoclimatology (1977). So yes, I do have somewhat of a background in geology.

Where are all the fossils that have been made without liquified sediment burying them? That is to ask: "How many fossils were made without the aid of water loosening and liquifying the earthen material to cover them so they could be preserved?"

Fossils are a rare occurrence, generally but not always, requiring rapid burial. I'm not sure what "you" mean by liquified sediment. Do you mean dissolved solids or transported sediment? Also, understand that burial can occur from non fluvial sources as well, such as volcanic ash, landslides, subsidence, wind blown loess, or sand to name a few.

Are there any ancient fossils that were made without the aid of water laden sediment?

yes, as described above.

Again, thank you for your time to read this and for your response. I know we may not agree, but I respect you in that you have never tried to belittle or berate those who disagree with you.

I try not to belittle but I admit that I have crossed the line a time or two. I just want people to understand what the science says, not necessarily accept it. When science and the bible disagree, I do not try to enter into a creative interpretation. I just look at those stories as non-literal allegories with valuable messages. That way I don't have to invent a creative interpretation or deny anything to retain my belief in God. Right or wrong, that's me.

God bless you.

And God bless you.

 

[AV1611VET]

As recorded by the fallible word of man.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

You don't have to answer this, but does the word of God exist anywhere on earth?

Locked away in the Vactican, maybe? in a trash can at the foot of Mt. Sinai, maybe? written from the pens of [homosexuals] Wescott & Hort? embedded in some Classical Greek writing, as opposed to Koine Greek? or maybe locked away in the head of some retired Internet Bible paraphraser?

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny. Reasoning with such a mindset is futile. It goes like this:

Q: "When was the universe created?"

A: "At the time of creation."

Q: "But WHEN was that?"

A: "In the beginning!"

Q: "Uhhhh....OK. But that "beginning" that you are talking about. When was it?"

A: "When the universe was created!"

Q: "Yes, you already said that. But I'm asking you WHEN the events of Genesis 1 took place?"

A: "I already told you! IN THE BEGINNING!"

The universe was created in 4004 BC.

It is not 'in creation' since 13,700,000,000 BC.

 

[RickG]

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

You don't have to answer this, but does the word of God exist anywhere on earth?

Locked away in the Vactican, maybe? in a trash can at the foot of Mt. Sinai, maybe? written from the pens of [homosexuals] Wescott & Hort? embedded in some Classical Greek writing, as opposed to Koine Greek? or maybe locked away in the head of some retired Internet Bible paraphraser?

I have already expressed myself. Interpret it anyway you wish.

 

[RickG]

The universe was created in 4004 BC.

It is not 'in creation' since 13,700,000,000 BC.

That's okay so long as you understand that here is also a huge body of very credible and well understood physical evidence that says differently. Believe as you wish.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's okay so long as you understand that here is also a huge body of very credible and well understood physical evidence that says differently.

Right ... that's why there are so many atheists around, isn't it?

The universe just screams "GOD IS DOING IT!", doesn't it?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Right ... that's why there are so many atheists around, isn't it?

The universe just screams "GOD IS DOING IT!", doesn't it?

How many do you need?

Personally, I think a billion people is a lot, but if you don't, again, that's your own prerogative.

 

[good brother]

I have a Master of Science degree from the Univ. of Memphis in Physical Earth Science with a concentration in paleoclimatology (1977). So yes, I do have somewhat of a background in geology.

So you're saying you might know a thing or two, eh?

Fossils are a rare occurrence, generally but not always, requiring rapid burial. I'm not sure what "you" mean by liquified sediment. Do you mean dissolved solids or transported sediment? Also, understand that burial can occur from non fluvial sources as well, such as volcanic ash, landslides, subsidence, wind blown loess, or sand to name a few.

Of all those possibilities for processes/materials for fossilization, is there one that is more common than the others?

I try not to belittle but I admit that I have crossed the line a time or two. I just want people to understand what the science says, not necessarily accept it. When science and the bible disagree, I do not try to enter into a creative interpretation. I just look at those stories as non-literal allegories with valuable messages. That way I don't have to invent a creative interpretation or deny anything to retain my belief in God. Right or wrong, that's me.

I know that's how you are. That's why I said what I said previously.

And God bless you.

Thank you.

 

[RickG]

So you're saying you might know a thing or two, eh?

I certainly do not claim to be an expert, but I am quite familiar with a few things and don't mind admitting that there are areas where I know little to nothing. Science, even just Earth Science is quite diverse and expansive.

Of all those possibilities for processes/materials for fossilization, is there one that is more common than the others?

Yes, marine fossils because they have the greatest chance to enter an anoxic environment and become subsequently buried in sediment which is continuously peculating down to the seafloor.

I know that's how you are. That's why I said what I said previously.

Thank you.

I'll always give you an honest answer to the best of my knowledge. Also keep in mind that when I give links to the scientific literature, I try to source material that doesn't require a pay-wall, so it can actually be sourced by the layman.

 

[good brother]

I certainly do not claim to be an expert, but I am quite familiar with a few things and don't mind admitting that there are areas where I know little to nothing. Science, even just Earth Science is quite diverse and expansive.

Yes, marine fossils because they have the greatest chance to enter an anoxic environment and become subsequently buried in sediment which is continuously peculating down to the seafloor.

Thank you, but I should have clarified my question about which fossils. I was talking about archaeopteryx, t Rex, triceratops, compsygnasis (is that the name I'm thinking of? ), raptor, .... those guys. What is the most common way they were buried? Sorry to not be clear.

 

[RickG]

Thank you, but I should have clarified my question about which fossils. I was talking about archaeopteryx, t Rex, triceratops, compsygnasis (is that the name I'm thinking of? ), raptor, .... those guys. What is the most common way they were buried? Sorry to not be clear.

Those guys are generally buried rather rapidly from ash flows, landslides or floods. In other words a catastrophic event. But the fossilization process occurs over a very long period of time which involves the exchange of organic material with dissolved minerals (premineralization). There really isn't a simple way to describe the process because there are many variables such as the environment, rate of sediment deposition, scavengers, acidity, temperature, pressure, chemical composition of the premineralization and recrystallization.

Also remember, fossilization is a very rare occurrence.

 

[RickG]

Don't forget ... just like the creation week you deny ... He also recorded what He did, when He did it, where He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, when it started, when it finished, and who the eyewitnesses were.

Okay AV, I yield to you. God is a trickster. He deliberately lays down evidence throughout his creation for the sole purpose of tricking us into believing things happened that never happened. It's all embedded not at all real.

 

[Jamin4422]

When science and the bible disagree,

Where does Science and the Bible disagree? Lets take a look at Noah's Flood where Peter tells us that the "OLD" WORLD was destoryed. Peter goes on to tell us more about this OLD world when tells us that this is the world of the UNGODLY. This word OLD also shows up in Paul's letter. Paul talks about how the OLD things pass away and we are made NEW in Christ. Just as the OLD world passed away and the UNGODLY perished back in the days of Noah. I do not see where "OLD" in this passage has anything to do with Geology at all. Do you? Was the world filled with ungodly mean back in the day of Noah like the world is filled with them today? I do not think so. I think we are talking about Ancient Mesopotamia and not the whole geographic / geological world at the time. Of course whatever it was that God destroyed in the flood is gone. He did not leave any record of it other then in the Bible. The point is that this old world is going to perish. Just like the old world perished in the day of Noah. We need to be made new so we qualify to be a part of the new world that God is going to Create. Even we read about a New Heaven and a New Earth in Rev 21.

2Pe 2:5 And 2532 spared 5339 not 3756 the old 744 world 2889, but 235 saved 5442 Noah 3575 the eighth 3590 [person], a preacher 2783 of righteousness 1343, bringing in 1863 the flood 2627 upon the world 2889 of the ungodly 765;

2Cr 5:17 Therefore 5620 if any man 1536 [be] in 1722 Christ 5547, [he is] a new 2537 creature 2937: old things 744 are passed away 3928 ; behold 2400 , all things 3956 are become 1096 new 2537.

744 // arcaiov // archaios // ar-khah'-yos //
from 746 ; TDNT - 1:486,81; adj
AV - old 8, of old time 3, a good while ago + 575 + 2250 1; 12
1) that has been from the beginning, original, primal, old ancient
1a) of men, things, times, conditions

 

[RickG]

Where does Science and the Bible disagree?

I do not question your understanding of he bible, however; from reading many of your posts in other threads, it is quite evident that you do not have an academic background in any physical science. You just can't take things that seem to fit and ignore all the rest that shows how they don't fit. In the past I have tried applying some of the same concepts you are promoting. In my case I knew better, it just took time for me to come to reality with myself. Science does not fit the bible nor is it meant to.

Lets take a look at Noah's Flood where Peter tells us that the "OLD" WORLD was destoryed. Peter goes on to tell us more about this OLD world when tells us that this is the world of the UNGODLY. This word OLD also shows up in Paul's letter. Paul talks about how the OLD things pass away and we are made NEW in Christ. Just as the OLD world passed away and the UNGODLY perished back in the days of Noah. I do not see where "OLD" in this passage has anything to do with Geology at all. Do you? Was the world filled with ungodly mean back in the day of Noah like the world is filled with them today? I do not think so. I think we are talking about Ancient Mesopotamia and not the whole geographic / geological world at the time. Of course whatever it was that God destroyed in the flood is gone. He did not leave any record of it other then in the Bible. The point is that this old world is going to perish. Just like the old world perished in the day of Noah. We need to be made new so we qualify to be a part of the new world that God is going to Create. Even we read about a New Heaven and a New Earth in Rev 21.

Once again you have to go through creative interpretation and I will agree that it almost works with respect to the known world in Noah's time, the book of Genesis. However, in Peter's and Paul's time the known world was far greater. We know there was no flood that encompassed the Roman Empire. Even just looking at Mesopotamia, the vastness and geography do not work.

If you want to work with an actual catastrophic flood, I suggest looking at the probable origin of the flood story. That is, the Epic of Gilgamesh where a strikingly similar flood story originates and predates that of the Genesis story and is probably passed down from earlier times from that. The obvious candidate there would be the Black Sea deluge which occurred, if memory serves, around 7 to 8 thousand years ago when the Bosphorus Straight was breached increasing the size of the Black Sea by 1/3.

Now, understand I am not suggesting that the above description is Noah's flood. What I am suggesting is that it is a possible candidate for the origin of the flood "story". I believe Noah's flood to an allegory, not a literal fact.

2Pe 2:5 And 2532 spared 5339 not 3756 the old 744 world 2889, but 235 saved 5442 Noah 3575 the eighth 3590 [person], a preacher 2783 of righteousness 1343, bringing in 1863 the flood 2627 upon the world 2889 of the ungodly 765;

2Cr 5:17 Therefore 5620 if any man 1536 [be] in 1722 Christ 5547, [he is] a new 2537 creature 2937: old things 744 are passed away 3928 ; behold 2400 , all things 3956 are become 1096 new 2537.

744 // arcaiov // archaios // ar-khah'-yos //
from 746 ; TDNT - 1:486,81; adj
AV - old 8, of old time 3, a good while ago + 575 + 2250 1; 12
1) that has been from the beginning, original, primal, old ancient
1a) of men, things, times, conditions

I have no idea what you are trying to convey there. What do those numbers represent?

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no idea what you are trying to convey there. What do those numbers represent?

Strong's Concordancehttp://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Pe&c=2&v=5&t=KJV#top

 

[RickG]

Strong's Concordance

In other words, a 19th century relational interpretation of the KJV by James Strong.

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words, a 19th century relational interpretation of the KJV by James Strong.

Ouch!

 

[mzungu]

Where does Science and the Bible disagree?

That is an easy one: EVERYWHERE!

 

[verysincere]

Originally Posted by Jamin4422

Where does Science and the Bible disagree?
​

That is an easy one: EVERYWHERE!

Every now and then we see silliness from the OPPOSITE extreme of the spectrum.

(Just kidding. I assume you're joking.)

 

[mzungu]

Every now and then we see silliness from the OPPOSITE extreme of the spectrum.

(Just kidding. I assume you're joking.)

I jest thee not for to claim that science and the Bible agree is tantamount to calling the Earth flat!

Since you made the claim then the onus is on you to prove it.

Science has not and does not deal with the unfalsifiable and the Bible is a book of spirituality and faith and thus unfalsifiable. Apples and oranges anyone?